USCA11 Case: 23-13843 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13843 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

MARK WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus OPENAI, L.L.C.,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-03122-MLB ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-13843 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13843

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Mark Walters sued OpenAI, L.L.C., in state court for defa- mation. After OpenAI removed the case to federal court, the dis- trict court issued an order requiring OpenAI to show why the case should not be remanded to state court due to lack of diversity. OpenAI responded, but eventually withdrew its notice of removal. Mr. Walters then filed a motion for costs and fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). See D.E. 34. In its remand order, the district court denied the motion for fees and costs without explanation. See D.E. 39 (“The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs and At- torney’s Fees.”). We review the denial of fees and costs under § 1447(c) for abuse of discretion. See Booknight v. Monroe Cty., 446 F.3d 1327, 1329 (11th Cir. 2006). In his brief, Mr. Walters argues that we must remand the case to the district court for it to provide some expla- nation for its denial of fees and costs. See Appellant’s Br. at 10-11. We agree. As a general matter, the standard for awarding fees and costs under § 1447(c) “turn[s] on the reasonableness of the removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). But “[w]ithout any explanation for its denial of a request for fees [and costs], it is impossible for us to discern the correctness of the district court’s judgment. It is necessary, therefore, to remand the case to the district court for an explanation[.].” In re Trinity Indus- tries, Inc., 876 F.2d 1485, 1496 (11th Cir. 1989). USCA11 Case: 23-13843 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2024 Page: 3 of 3

23-13843 Opinion of the Court 3

VACATED and REMANDED.